Pens binding agreement with IOC

Forum for Pittsburgh Penguins-related messages.

Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf

Pens binding agreement with IOC

Postby Racer17 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:03 am

Might be a dumb question but...

I completely understand the clause between the two to be "exclusive" in this bid and not allow the Pens to discuss other options...

However,

Why would it prohibit the Pens from working with the government at any level for a "plan B" incase the license is not awarded to IOC? I can appreciate the clause is so the Pens don't jump ship and team with FC, or negotitate with Kansas City or Vegas in lieu of the deal with IOC. But how is an agreement in principal to get government funding if and only if the IOC does NOT get the slots license a breach of contract? I just don't get it.
Racer17
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:24 pm
Location: Brentwood, PA

Re: Pens binding agreement with IOC

Postby Goalie on Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:18 am

Racer17 wrote:Might be a dumb question but...

I completely understand the clause between the two to be "exclusive" in this bid and not allow the Pens to discuss other options...

However,

Why would it prohibit the Pens from working with the government at any level for a "plan B" incase the license is not awarded to IOC? I can appreciate the clause is so the Pens don't jump ship and team with FC, or negotitate with Kansas City or Vegas in lieu of the deal with IOC. But how is an agreement in principal to get government funding if and only if the IOC does NOT get the slots license a breach of contract? I just don't get it.


The Isle Of Capri knows they are fighting an uphill battle in Harrisburg because of the ties between the Station Square Group and Rendell and Co.

If the Penguins were allowed to negotiate with government that would give Rendell and Co. the perfect out of their situation. They would be able to give the slots liscense to their big campaign contributors and try to build an arena with public money. At which point they could either build the arena and hurt the taxpayers or tell the Pens to go away but their #1 interest would be taken care of.

I really believe Rendell and Co. totally underestimated the amount of public support for the Penguins. When they tried to ride the Steelers coat tails for free publicity and Rendell was shot down with chants of "Mario, Mario" it opened their eyes in my opinion.

This is why "Plan B" has come up even though as recently as mid December there was no money for "Plan B".

From the Penguins point of view they are well past negotiating with government, they have tried that route and been turned away.
Goalie
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,580
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:24 pm

Postby netwolf on Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:21 am

It would depend on the specifics of their agreement I suppose. IoC knows that one of the main selling points of their proposal is a new multipurpose arena for the city. They would want to guard against anything that could remove that as a selling point, whether it be a competing agency for the slots or not.

If the Pens work with local government, even in a "just in case" capacity, then the gaming board knows the arena part of the IoC proposal doesn't carry as much weight, because there is a contingency plan in place.

This is completely reasonable from IoC's point of view and given Lemieux's history of being promised things by ste and local politicians, I think it's reasonable for the Pens as well.
netwolf
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,347
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:04 am

Postby Racer17 on Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:30 am

A "contingency" plan should hold no weight with the board because it is supposed to award the license based off of what benefits Pittsburgh and the state the most. To that point, a free arena is better than (at minimum) $90M in state funds going towards the project. And if everyone is correct and the "fix" is in, nothing will change it. So why would the agreement forbid the Pens from entering into Plan B discussions if they aren't leaving the IOC simply for a prettier girl at the dance?
Racer17
Junior 'A'
Junior 'A'
 
Posts: 480
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 2:24 pm
Location: Brentwood, PA

Postby Goalie on Wed Feb 22, 2006 12:41 am

Racer17 wrote:A "contingency" plan should hold no weight with the board because it is supposed to award the license based off of what benefits Pittsburgh and the state the most. To that point, a free arena is better than (at minimum) $90M in state funds going towards the project. And if everyone is correct and the "fix" is in, nothing will change it. So why would the agreement forbid the Pens from entering into Plan B discussions if they aren't leaving the IOC simply for a prettier girl at the dance?


The problem is that your first sentence should be what happens, however when the Governer gets to hand pick 3 of 7 gaming board members and his party picks 2 of the remaining 4 what benefits Pittsburgh and the State the most can take a back seat to what benefits the people involved the most. Rendell may be a lot of things but he is smart enough not to bite the hand that feeds his big money campaign.

If the Pens were to negotiate a contingency plan it would take away a huge part of the IOC proposal. If a new arena would be built anyway the economic implications for the region from them getting the liscense.

Again the Penguins have tried the route with the politicians and were told there was no money available and to find another way to build and arena and they did and now its up to the people in the right positions to support them.
Goalie
ECHL'er
ECHL'er
 
Posts: 1,580
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:24 pm

Postby netwolf on Wed Feb 22, 2006 1:56 am

Racer17 wrote:A "contingency" plan should hold no weight with the board because it is supposed to award the license based off of what benefits Pittsburgh and the state the most. To that point, a free arena is better than (at minimum) $90M in state funds going towards the project. And if everyone is correct and the "fix" is in, nothing will change it. So why would the agreement forbid the Pens from entering into Plan B discussions if they aren't leaving the IOC simply for a prettier girl at the dance?


If the board knows that an arena can be provided through another means, how could that NOT take away from the IoC proposal? We can say it shouldn't make a difference, but the board would all know that possibility is out there.

Another thing that could explain that clause is that the Pens expected somekind of last minute token offer, and given the track record of local politicians on this issue, they may have wanted it to protect them against more false promises. :D
netwolf
NHL Fourth Liner
NHL Fourth Liner
 
Posts: 15,347
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 2:04 am


Return to Pittsburgh Penguins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Pruezy11881 and 7 guests

e-mail